HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-0002559-2011
COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
V. :
:
LEANDER LEDEBOHM : CP-21-CR-2559-2011
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF
APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1925
Masland, J., November 14, 2012:--
Defendant, Leander Alfred Ledebohm, appeals his summary conviction for
Driving While Operating Privilege is Suspended or Revoked, DUI-Related (DUS).
For the following reason this court’s judgment of guilt should be affirmed.
Defendant was convicted by a jury of Simple Assault, and by the court of
Harassment and DUS. On appeal, he only challenges the DUS conviction. He
complains of the following matter on appeal:
In keeping with the directions of the Defendant, the
only issue to be raised on appeal was the sufficiency
of the evidence with which the Court found him Guilty
of the Summary offense of [DUS].
1
Concise Statement, dated Sept. 21, 2012.
Facts
Defendant’s DUS conviction arises from an evening of drinking and
violence wherein the Defendant assaulted his girlfriend and her son. As he does
not challenge his convictions for simple assault and harassment, we need not
discuss those facts in detail. Instead, the court’s inquiry is very narrow.
1
Defense counsel delivered his original concise statement to the court on September 21, 2012. However,
upon contacting the Clerk of Courts regarding transmission of the record on November 13, 2012, it was
determined that a concise statement was never filed with the Clerk. Rather than create an issue in this case
(when we find manifestly none exists regarding the ultimate issue) we have directed the Clerk to clock in
the original concise statement, transmit the record and let the chips fall where they may.
CP-21-CR-2559-2011
Defendant does not dispute the suspension of his license as a result of a DUI
conviction. He does, however, dispute whether he drove a vehicle on the night in
question.
Janet Maxwell, the victim of Defendant’s assault, testified that on the night
of August 24, 2011, the Defendant drove his parent’s Mercedes, taking her to the
2
local VFW for drinks and dinner. Defendant rebutted Ms. Maxwell’s testimony
with his own contradictory testimony, where he claimed his parents had driven
3
them to the VFW on the night in question. His father corroborated this
4
testimony.
Discussion
In a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the court must determine
“whether the evidence admitted at trial, and all reasonable inferences drawn from
that evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as
verdict winner, was sufficient to enable the factfinder to conclude that the
Commonwealth established all of the elements of the offense beyond a
reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Beam, 923 A.2d 414, 417 (Pa. Super.
2007).
Also, the factfinder—here, the undersigned—“exclusively weighs the
evidence, assesses the credibility of witnesses, and may choose to believe all,
part, or none of the evidence.” Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 36 A.3d 24, 39 (Pa.
2011) (internal citations omitted).
2
Notes of Testimony, April 30, 2012 and May 1, 2012 at 32.
3
N.T. at 71.
4
N.T. at 107-09.
-2-
CP-21-CR-2559-2011
Here, the undersigned acted as factfinder regarding Defendant’s summary
DUS charge. In light of the contradictory witness testimony, the determination of
whether Defendant in fact operated a motor vehicle comes down to a question of
credibility. Simply put, Ms. Maxwell’s testimony was credible and that of the
Defendant and his father was not. Specifically, Defendant’s testimony was
clearly self-serving and his father’s testimony was likely motivated by animus
towards Ms. Maxwell and the arresting officer, whom he referred to as a “bitch” in
5
open court. Accordingly, the court afforded the testimony no weight. Instead,
the credible testimony of Ms. Maxwell was sufficient to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that the Defendant was operating a motor vehicle on the night
in question.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the very narrow question presented in this appeal required a
straightforward credibility determination in a he said, she said situation. As
factfinder, the court made that determination and as such, the verdict of guilty
should not be disturbed by an appellate court.
By the Court,
Albert H. Masland, J.
Matthew Smith, Esquire
Assistant District Attorney
Allen C. Welch, Jr., Esquire
Court-appointed for Defendant :sal
5
N.T. at 111-12.
-3-